Talk:History of Alaska/Archive 1

Archive 1

one of the best articles?

This article is full of jumps and gaps caused by editing errors. Take the mention of the Good Friday Earthquake in the first section: it gives no year or date. The story of the quake then resumes down at the Native American section. This is just one of many, many editorial issues this article has. It needs some serious revision, and I must go to work now so I cannot do it.TKE

Hi, I wrote most of this article. I'm really sorry, but it appears User:Reddi had completely reorganized the article without discussing it on the talk page at all. I have reorganized the article in places where Reddi's reorganization made the article inconsistent, and hope that future editors will keep this article flowing chronologically, as is Wikipedia's intention on most history articles. Bits and pieces of this article were lost throughout all the vandalism---I had to restore the entire pre-history section myself---and I haven't been able to keep up with all the reverting as much as I should because of other pursuits. Toothpaste 19:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your fast response, the article is much much more coherant now. I hadn't thought the author screwed it up, it's just one of the drawbacks/advantages of the wiki format. Good job. Oh, but you should have mentioned Northern Exposure :)TKE

Yow, the history jumps from Prehistory to the 20th Century? Lots of work remains, it seems.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I see prehistory, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th century clearly titled. You are welcome to add more information. Jeff Smith (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• I just reverted a blanking of the middle of the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

the first sentence: problems with "history" and "Alaska"

"The history of Alaska dates back to the Paleolithic Era"

That's prehistory by definition, isn't it?

"Alaska" is a political decriptor - it is not a natural geographical unit, as should be clear from the shape of its eastern border - and as such did not exist in the Paleolithic. -- Danny Yee 01:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Something like "the history of the region that is now Alaska" would fix the solecism, but it's pretty clunky so I'm reluctant to make that change. -- Danny Yee 01:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

history doesn't 'date' to anytime. the present solution is preferable. Baad 07:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Yee. I suggest that the word 'history' does imply a date, even according to Wikipedia itself. Under wikiarticle 'history', we note

"Historians limit their study to events that have been recorded since the introduction of the"

"earliest known written and historical records, notably the Narmer Palette of circa 3200 BC."

"Events before then are called prehistory, a period informed by the fields of palaeontology"

"and archaeology."

For this reason, that Paleolithic first sentence sounds inconsistent with what we academically and casually define as history. There are many other indicators that the word 'history' implies a connection with written records or archaeological records: for instance, when we say 'ancient history of china', we don't talk start by talking about its paleolithic era, but instead about state formation in Chou dynasty.Wilgamesh 14:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It'd be good to be careful with the use of "history" (though there'd be no confusion writing about, say, "the history of the pre-Cambrian Earth"), but I was more concerned about the implication that some entity "Alaska" existed that far back. Is "the Alaskan peninsula" ever used? -- Danny Yee 05:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It says that the first european contact was with russian explorers, but it seems likely that the russian explorers would have been Asian.

"The history of Alaska is as long and varied as" is a terrible cliche, and conveys no information at all. One could argue that Alaska has the *longest* history of any part of the Americas, but that would be just as silly. And is Alaska's history more or less varied than that of Florida, or of Tibet? Unless there's some way of deciding that question, stating an answer to it is just empty. -- Danny Yee 05:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

We could go with something like "The history of Alaska, as part of the United States, began in 1867, but settlement of the region dates back to around 12 000 BC". Alternatively, something like "The name Alaska dates to XXXX, when..." - but when was the name first used? -- Danny Yee 06:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

"The name "Alaska" is most likely derived from the Aleut word Alyeska, meaning great country, mainland or great land." I think that's one of those questions you can't really answer without going back in time, really, and I like the first suggestion much better, too. Toothpaste 10:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I like the suggestion also. It looks pretty good, and by leading into the next sentence about the bering strait crossing, it conforms to the rest of the article since later on we get more details on the prehistoric migrators. I'll just edit Yee's suggestion in.Wilgamesh 18:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Is this Accurate?

This page says that the first people from Asia came to North America around 16,000 to 10,000 BC. I believe that their are archaeologists who believe that they probably came as early as around 100,000 BC.

Leon Trotsky 20:52 25 October 2005

12,000 BC or thereabouts is the clear consensus. Anyone arguing for 100,000 BC is pretty fringe. Danny Yee 07:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

see also Image:Map-of-human-migrations.jpg; 100,000 BC there were no homines sapientes anywhere outside Africa and maybe the Middle East. Baad 07:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Seward's Folly

Nice article. I noticed that there was no discussion of "Seward's Folly" and some of the political fallout from the purchance. I'm hesitant to add it myself, so as not to disrupt the current narative flow of the main author(s). 172 | Talk 05:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead. I'm sorry, but the seven textbooks and fifteen websites I used in this article seemed only briefly to mention the political turmoil caused by Seward's Folly, and after moving information from this main article into subarticles, I forgot to make sure it was mentioned at all, which I have now. Toothpaste 09:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

That's interesting. I know hardly next to anything about Alaska history, never having read any specialized texts on the subject, and only geting bits and pieces from stuff on presidential administrations and the Cold War. I assumed that it would get more attention in the Alaska history literature because general U.S. histories often mention "Seward's Folly" whenever they bring up the Alaska Purchase. Perhaps that's a sign that it didn't have much of an effect on Alaska's development in the end. Thanks for the response. 172 | Talk 11:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You got it, 172. That's one of those things that is put in high school history texts because you can remember the popular name for the purchase at the time. Overall, the political fallout from the purchase was minimized by the Yukon Gold Rush of 1896. TKE

bvj

External websites

I hope you do not mind me adding a section for external websites. There are some nice ones out there that should be included. I only added mine about Soapy Smith. Soapy 22:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the Soapy Smith website link probably belongs on the Soapy Smith page - remember wikipedia is not a collection of links. Welcome to wikipedia. Megapixie 23:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Maps

The maps on this page are geting out of control. One map of reasonable size should suffice. The map that excludes "southern Alaska" (southeast) is like a map of california, cut in thirds, not showing southern California. The southeast section cut from the map, also contained the capitol of Juneau. LOL. Soapy 05:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion no state needs maps more than Alaska. They are packed with information and should be kept. Rjensen 05:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Then get better, complete maps! Soapy 05:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

the 1895 map is one of the best ever made of Alaska. If you want perfection, try Encyclopedia Britannica. Rjensen 05:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That is not one of the better maps I have seen of Alaska. On this page, it's too big, and you still can't read it. What good is it? We already have a map that shows the shape of Alaska. Soapy 05:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reduced the size of this and a few other images; as they're all thumbnails, they don't need to overshadow the text since clicking on the image allows the user to see the image full-size. I'd like to see better-quality maps as well, but these will have to work within the article until such time as they can be replaced.--Lordkinbote 06:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! Now let's see if someone can get a complete map to replace the other Alaska map that cuts out the southeast part of Alaska. It may not seem like much if you have never been there, but this is the part of Alaska that most visitors visit!Soapy 14:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and it nearly lops off the current capital as well as the original one! --Lordkinbote 15:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)==

Sitka! Soapy 16:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

FAR

Just letting all interested parties know that I've put History of Alaska up for a Featured Article Review, because of the virtual lack of inline citations. Please do comment on the review (here) and help with improving the citations, if you can. Thanks! --Miskwito 00:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I may be wrong but from going to the actual FAR page it appears to me that Miskwito really wants this article removed. Please go to Featured Article Review then scroll down to History of Alaska (1.13) and leave a comment there if you wish to keep this article going. This article was created because it was too large to have on the Alaska article. Soapy 05:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Just a note (which I've put on the FAR page too) to clarify that this isn't the same thing as the article being up for deletion. It's to try to fix problems with the article or, failing that, remove the article's status as a featured article. Nothing more. I mean no offense! --Miskwito 22:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• I was wrong in my assumptions on Miskwito's part. There is no movement to "delete" this article. Only to "remove" it from Featured Article status if it is not cleaned up. The word usage and definitions on the FAR page need to be cleared up by Wikipedia. Soapy 00:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Photograph locations

Is it possible that someone might relocate the photographs to their proper spots? The Department of Alaska covered 1867 to 1884 but the photograph is of the 1898 Klondike gold rush. The District of Alaska covered the years 1884 to 1900 but has a 1916 photograph. The Alaska Territory years covered 1900 to 1958 but has an 1895 map. Soapy 02:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Done Soapy 16:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Added to the Alaska article

This was added to the Alaska article by a user who also added a long rant about how the court system in Alaska is currently unconstitutional. I'm suspicious of its truthfulness, and it's definitely pov regardless. I'm pasting it here in case anyone wants to try to salvage it. Calliopejen1 10:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

After Alaska was purchased by the United States from Russia in 1867, it became a military district. Posts were established at Wrangel and Sitka. For 17 years Congress neglected Alaska. In the first 15 years since it was purchased, 25 bills were introduced in Congress to provide Alaska with a civil government, all were became buried in committees. The fortieth Congress passed a customs act, 15 Stat.240, creating a customs district which meant that foreign goods were subject to the same duties in Alaska as elsewhere in the United States, extending to Alaska the laws regarding commerce and navigation and prohibiting the importation and sale of distilled liquors.

In 1873 the act was amended to prohibit the sale of liquor to Indians. The forty-first Congress made the Pribilof islands a reservation and enacted into law a twenty year exclusive concession of their seal fisheries to a private company (Alaska Commercial Company) based in San Francisco. These two acts comprised the only legislation for Alaska that was to be enacted by Congress for 17 years. During that period, no hopeful settler could acquire a title to land; no pioneer could clear a bit of forested wilderness and count on the fruits of his toil, or build a cabin with the assurance that it was his; no prospector could stake a mining claim with security for his enterprise; property could not be deeded or transferred; no will was valid; marriage could not be celebrated; no injured party could secure redress for grievances except through his own acts; crime could not be punished.

What semblance of government as there was, was exercised without legal authority by the commanding general of the troops stationed at Sitka. When there was an uprising of the Nez Perce' in Idaho the troops were withdrawn and even their shadowy authority and potency ceased to exist. There was left one collector of customs, M.P. Berry as the sole federal legal authority in charge of Alaska's destinies. He was taken ill and left Sitka for medical advice in Victoria B.C. It is suspected that a contributory factor in his departure had something to do with his telegraph to the treasury department that "unless a vessel were dispatched at a very early day to Sitka, its people would have been handed over bodily for slaughter to the Indians".

Some of the facts here seem to be true, but needs sourcing to be sure. And most certainly a change of tone per WP:NPOV. --Yksin 16:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Japanese occupation during World War II

The article now states:

During World War II, three of the outer Aleutian Islands—Attu, Agattu and Kiska—were the only part of the United States to have land occupied by the enemy during the war. The battle became a matter of national pride, defending the nation against the first foreign military campaign on U.S. soil since the War of 1812.

Alaska was not a state when the invasion occurred. Other US territory invaded and occupied by the Japanese were Wake Island, Guam and the Philippines. The present text needs clarification or deletion-- it seems too fine a point to include given the editing which it would take to make it accurate. Kablammo 22:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now revised it, and also removed the statement that the battle was the first foreign military campaign on US soil. Pancho Villa's forces invaded New Mexico in 1916; whether that was a "foreign military campaign" may depend on one's point of view. Kablammo 12:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

British lease of Panhandle

Lots here to work on, but spotted this:

The Russian-American Company suffered because of 1821 amendments to its charter, and eventually it entered into an agreement with the Hudson's Bay Company that allowed the British to sail through Russian territory.

The Ukase of 1821 didn't weaken the company, but its consequences did; it tried to forbid other companies/countries from trade north of 51 degrees; the Treaty of Saint Petersburg (1825) was the result of British counterpressure and part of its terms/corollaries were that the RAC would lease the mainland shore of the Panhandle and allowed for the establishment of British forts in the region - Taku/Durham, Stikine, Simpson and McLoughlin (Simpson and McLoughlin were between 51 and 55 N) - and formed part of the basis for the British claims during the Alaska Boundary Dispute; about which I owuld have expected to see more in this article, btw.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Found some details on the British lease of most of the Panhandle, 1839. See this and there's more in the same book linked/cited there.....Skookum1 (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Telegraph line, 1865

The Collins Overland Telegraph did not reach Alaska, but ran out of relevance when a TransAtlantic cable was finished and the project abandoned, with the line terminating somewhere north of Hazelton, British Columbia....I'm not sure if the line was ever used, but the section of the line built in Alaska (then Russian America) continued construction oblivious to the halt of work elsewhere; was it ever hooked up to itself, i.e. in use? It never connected either with Russia proper or with the Canada or the continental United States, though....Skookum1 (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't quite right

In the end, the North Pacific rivalry proved to be too difficult for Spain, which withdrew from the contest and transferred its claims in the region to the United States in the Adams-Onís Treaty of 1819.

There was a Russo-Spanish treaty in there somewhere, delineating the division of Russian and Spanish claims, I think around 55 N or 51N. I'll be doing articles on the Ukases of 1799 and 1821 so mention of the Russo-Spanish treaty should turn up. The Nootka Conventions should definitely be mentioned here, and "claims" isn't quite the right word, as what the Spanish had greed with the British was simply the obligation not to press exclusive claims and allow any power to take part in economic activity, so long as no political claim was pressed; that was what was bought up by the Americans, not actual claims; this is citable, It's in Alexander Begg's book cited on Alaska boundary dispute. For now I'll add "obligations" as a simple short form...Skookum1 (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalizied?

Alaska purchase price is listed as $1.00. I can't make out the facsimile of the check but this can't be right or Seward's folly would not have existed. Other sites suggest 2.7 million. Can someone verify proper purchase price, make a correction and then club the perpetrator like a baby seal? Just kidding but I like the integrity of Wikipedia and hate to think some kid fails an important test based on misinfo, thanks, K~

Contributions/68.205.141.72 (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Kevinpedia

• I agree with your comment and felt compelled to respond to your statement that you would, "hate to think some kid fails an important test based on misinfo...." Actually both my children's high and intermediate schools history and English teachers have banned listing Wikipedia as a source for research due to the "unlimited and uncontrollable amount of daily misinformation found there." By doing this the students were not able to blame Wikipedia for errors. It's a good idea for schools. Jeff Smith (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Alasa

A russian Empire found alaska. some animals that are there are huskies pengusins fish birds dall sheep eagles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.5.6 (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

school

who likes school —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.105.91 (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• something that needs addressed*

Someone thought it funny to edit this page by slipping some things into the second paragraph area. I have copy-pasted them below.

-"In the 1890s, gold rushes in Alaska and the nearby Yukon Territory brought thousands of hookers and settlers to Alaska. Alaska was granted a weed plant or two in 1912. In 1942, two of the outer Aleutian Islands—Attu and Kiska—were occupied by the Prostatutes and their recovery for the U.S. became a matter of gay pride. The construction of military bases contributed to the population growth of some Alaskan cities. Alaska was granted statehood on January 3, 1959. In 1964, the massive “Good Friday Earthquake” killed some people and one dog and leveled several villages." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.98.128.252 (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

A number of problems to address

I just spent some time trying to copyedit this article and correct various factual mistakes. I have to stop now, but there are many problems and mistakes left. So I am quickly making note about them here.

From the subsection "Later Russian settlement and the Russian-American Company (1799-1867)":

• In 1795, Baranov, concerned by the sight of non-Russian Europeans trading with the Natives in southeast Alaska, established Mikhailovsk near present-day Sitka. Though he bought the land from the Tlingits, Tlingits from a neighboring settlement later attacked and destroyed Mikhailovsk. After Baranov retaliated, razing the Tlingit village, he built the settlement of New Archangel. It became the capital of Russian America and today is the city of Sitka.
  • Sitka was not founded because there were non-Russians in the area but because sea otters were being depleted in the Cook Inlet and Kodiak Island areas. I have not heard of Mikhailovsk--my source says Arkhangelsk was the first post at Sitka Sound (thus the second one was named Novo-Arkhangelsk). I added more information about the expansion to Sitka in the subsection "Early Russian settlement", but do not have time right now to fix the redundant (and incorrect info in the later section).

• By 1804, Alexandr Baranov, now manager of the Russian–American Company, had consolidated the company's hold on the American fur trade following his victory over the local Tlingit clan at the Battle of Sitka. Despite these efforts the Russians never fully colonized Alaska. The Russian monopoly on trade was also being weakened by the Hudson's Bay Company, which set up a post on the southern edge of Russian America in 1833.
  • I don't understand what "consolidated the company's hold on the American fur trade" means. It couldn't mean the entire Northwest fur trade--British and Americans controlled everything south of Sitka. The reestablishment of Sitka wasn't a consolidation so much as an expansion, right? I also do not understand "Despite these efforts the Russians never fully colonized Alaska." Alaska is huge, its interior vast. Its Arctic coast long. Of course the Russians never "fully colonized" it. Neither have the Americans. What this has to do with Sitka is beyond me. On the RAC's monopoly and the HBC's competition--both companies were monopolies, but only over people of their own nation. The HBC's monopoly prevented British subjects from competing within the HBC's domain, and the RAC's monopoly did the same for Russian subjects within the RAC's domain. The way the text is worded makes it sound like the RAC's monopoly had some kind of power against the HBC. Before the treaties between Russia and the US and UK in 1824 and 1825 there was nothing preventing American and British subjects from trading in the Alaska or any of the RAC's monopoly domain. The relation between the three is far more complex than the statement made here, which strikes me as an a misleading overgeneralization.

• From the subsection "Britain's presence": British settlements at the time in Alaska consisted of a few scattered trading outposts, with most settlers arriving by sea. Captain James Cook, midway through his third and final voyage of exploration in 1778, sailed along the west coast of North America aboard the HMS Resolution, from then-Spanish California all the way to the Bering Strait. During the trip, he discovered what came to be known as Cook Inlet (named in honor of Cook in 1794 by George Vancouver, who had served under his command) in Alaska. The Bering Strait proved to be impassable, although the Resolution and its companion ship HMS Discovery made several attempts to sail through it. The ships left the straits to return to Hawaii in 1779.
  • This subsection falls under the section "18th century", follows a subsection about Spanish voyages between 1775 and the early 1790s, and is mostly about James Cook. It is clearly about the late 18th century. Yet the first sentence claims there were British settlements in Alaska "at the time" and that "most settlers" came by sea. But there were no British settlements in Alaska in the 1700s. One could argue that the later posts at Fort Taku and Stikine were British and in Alaska. I cannot think of any others. And while these two might be called British, they were essentially leased from Russia. Finally, they were not really "settlements" and did not have "settlers" arriving by sea (or land). Unless I'm greatly mistaken they were HBC trading posts, whose personnel was assigned by the company to serve for a limited time before being transferred elsewhere or retiring to any place they wanted. Also, on Cook--the Bering Strait was quite passable. Cook led his ships through and into the Arctic Ocean for some distance before ice forced him back. The ships sailed to Hawaii after this one attempt. After Cook was killed in Hawaii his officers returned north and made two more attempts, both times passing the Bering Strait but finding the Arctic Ocean impassable due to ice. They did not return to Hawaii after that, but went to Kamchatkha, then Canton.

• From the subsection "Later Russian settlement and the Russian-American Company (1799-1867)": American fur traders, who encroached on territory claimed by Russians, were also becoming a force. The Russo-American Treaty of 1824, which gave Americans the right to the fur trade only below 54° 40' north latitude, was widely ignored by merchants, and the Russians' hold on Alaska weakened further.
  • As I wrote above, nothing stopped Americans from trading in Alaska. The RAC's monopoly applied to Russians, not Americans. Also, the 1824 treaty did not restrict American trading to south of Parallel 54°40′ north. Read the treaty: Saint Petersburg Convention. It is settlements that are not allowed, by either side. Article I says very clearly, both Americans and Russians "shall be neither disturbed nor restrained either in navigation, or in fishing, or in the power of resorting to the coasts upon points which may not already have been occupied, for the purpose of trading with the natives"..."in any part of...the Pacific Ocean". The only restrictions described in the rest of the treaty are that there is to be no trade of spirituous liquors, firearms, other arms, powder and munitions of war, and no "resorting" to a settlement of the other nation without permission--and even that is not to take effect for 10 years from ratification. In short, this article's description of the treaty is almost exactly backwards. Pfly (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

About the British settlements thing...in earlier versions of the Russian America and Russian colonization of the Americas article, there were claims that there were Russian settlements in BC, Washington and Oregon which as you and I know is poppycock. There's been quite a bit of confabulation and conflation, apparently from Russian sources (not meaning print sources, but Wiki contributions), about the scale of Russian colonization. I have other comments about some of your points but I just got up; I'll try and find some of the googlebooks I found about early Tlingit-Russian interactions; particularly the Battle of Sitka and its predecessor in 1802, which originally drove the Rusians out. I think Mikhailovsk was a parallel name for Archangelsk, as the Archangel in question was Michael.....(and to distinguish it from the Arctic port of Archangelsk..near Murmansk).Skookum1 (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I should say, not everything above is a "mistake". Some just need additional clarification (eg, Mikhailovsk), and/or sources (maybe Sitka's founding was due in part to non-Russian activity in the area--even if the depletion of furs was pushing the Russians that direction anyway). Actually the main problem with the Sitka bit is that I added different info about it earlier but didn't have time to combine it with this info. Pfly (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Notable historical figures

I recently rewrote this section, for clarity and updating some of the names. There is only one name whose inclusion I question, yet did not remove. That would be George Sharrock. It would appear to me that his name was included solely because he was mayor of Anchorage during the earthquake. He's hardly a historical figure beyond that little nugget. It would be like saying that you must include Red Boucher (mayor of Fairbanks in 1967 during the flood), John Devens (mayor of Valdez when Joe Hazelwood had his little drunk driving escapade) or Emery Valentine (mayor of Juneau when the SS Princess Sophia sunk). Sharrock's next two successors, Elmer E. Rasmuson and George M. Sullivan, are far more notable, and that's including from a historical perspective. RadioKAOS (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Alaska Statehood Monument.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Alaska Statehood Monument.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Alaska Statehood Monument.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Adoption of the Gregorian calendar in Alaska

Working to improve Old Style and New Style dates, the section Adoption in the Americas has a poor citation ("Sumner, 1875") for Alaska's change of calendars. I hoped to find something better here but there is even less. Google Books just gives me one detailed item—that looks like it got its info from Wikipedia. So I wonder if anyone can (a]) identify "Sumner, 1875" or (b]) point me to the decree that changed the calendar and the date line [Library of Congress?]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Since writing that, I found this on google books. It would be better to get back to the original decree, if someone could find it please. Meanwhile, I'll add that citation to this article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on History of Alaska. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.alaska.net/~aleut/Culture_History.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608075711/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0005777 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0005777
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1479
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081118052005/http://www.columbia.edu/~sp2023/scienceandsociety/web-pages/Geology.html to http://www.columbia.edu/~sp2023/scienceandsociety/web-pages/Geology.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://uaf-db.uaf.edu/jukebox/PJWeb/pjhome.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Notables

Notable historical figures, at 37, seems rather overblown for a state with a population of 740,000. WP:UNDUE – Sca (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)